A/HRC/13/34 highlighting international standards addressing the risk of statelessness. Such a risk arises when States require the prior renunciation of another nationality in order to process a request for its own.6 This practice was reflected in, inter alia, the submissions of a number of States – for the previous report of the Secretary-General on the issue of arbitrary deprivation of nationality (A/HRC/10/34). The International Law Commission, in its draft articles on the nationality of natural persons in relation to the succession of States, noted that such requirements should not be applied in a manner that would render an applicant for nationality stateless, even if only temporarily. Furthermore, according to article 7 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, States should not deprive a national who applies for naturalization in another State of his or her nationality, unless the person has acquired or obtained assurances of acquiring another nationality. Similarly, it also provides that States should only grant renunciation of nationality where the person concerned possesses or acquires another nationality. 43. Procedural safeguards are essential to prevent abuse of the law. States are thus expected to observe minimum procedural standards in order to ensure that decisions on nationality matters do not contain any element of arbitrariness. For example, according to article 17 of the International Law Commission’s draft articles on the nationality of natural persons, decisions relating to acquisition, retention or renunciation of nationality should be issued in writing and be open to effective administrative or judicial review. These elements, according to the Commission, “represent minimum requirements in this respect”.7 44. The International Law Commission also stated in the above-mentioned commentary on the draft articles that the review process could be carried out by a competent jurisdiction of an administrative or judicial nature in conformity with the internal law of each State. The Commission clarified that the term “effective” was intended to stress the fact that an opportunity had to be provided to permit meaningful review of relevant substantive issues; it could thus be understood in the same sense as in article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, where the same word is used. Moreover, the Commission stressed that the word “judicial” should be understood as covering both civil and administrative jurisdictions. The right to a review against deprivation of nationality is guaranteed by article 8, paragraph 4, of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. 45. At the regional level, the European Convention on Nationality also contains important procedural standards on deprivation of nationality; for instance, in article 11, it states that decisions should contain reasons in writing. Article 12 further requires that decisions be open to an administrative or judicial review in conformity with internal law. 46. Violations of the right to a nationality must be open to an effective remedy. Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, expressly provides that, where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, including a nationality, States parties should provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity. The Human Rights Council, in its resolutions 7/10 and 10/13, called upon States to ensure that an effective remedy is available to persons who have been arbitrarily deprived of their nationality, including, but not limited to, restoration of nationality. The Executive Committee of UNHCR, in its conclusion No. 102 (LVI) of 2005, called on States to assist stateless persons to give them access to legal remedies to redress statelessness, in particular resulting from the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. It has also been noted that access to effective remedies often relies on providing 6 7 GE.09-17512 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1999, vol. II (2), p. 31. Ibid., p. 38. 11